| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Obama should take a more European approach | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 15 2008, 05:42 PM (277 Views) | |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 05:42 PM Post #1 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
A more European approach to torture that is...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 15 2008, 06:35 PM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
That sounds about right on the mark. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 07:28 PM Post #3 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Not to mention it also shows the wrongheadedness of those who claim torture doesn't work... I guess it only works on German murders. This is not to say one should advocate open torture as a means for interrogation, but in a war torture may be the only tool available for that tough nut that needs cracked. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Dec 15 2008, 08:26 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
No no no. This can't be right. So many enlightened people profess that torture never results in good information that I question the validity of this story. The guy was obviously framed. The police probably killed the boy and put him under the jetty. How else would they know exactly where to find him? On another subject, when did "enlightened" become synonymous with "sheltered"? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Dec 16 2008, 10:42 AM Post #5 |
|
Captain
|
I see the jist of matter like this, the Deputy Police Chief and his subordinates did what I would do, what you would do, what just about anybody would do (Dirty Harry would definitly do it) BUT at the same time knowing that my career would probably be at an end, cheap price for giving a child a chance to survive. That police conduct is illegal in any civilized nation for all the right reasons.. from innocent till proven guilty to false confessions forced under coierson and a dozen reasons inbetween. The Judges that have ruled have seen that the offenders had acted wrongly for the right reason..the judges have tried to balance justice and law but as we see with this article and the posts so far, it leads to a precedent being set and what seems to be right on the surface busts open a dam for justifying wrongdoings. I see mentioned in the article as justification for torture is the Bali bombings which killed nearly a hundred Australians along with other Western tourists. That claim is false, there was no working connection between Al Qaeda and the Bali Bombers, no amount of torture on a hundred Al Qaeda operatives would have prevented that attack but merely again gives plausible justification for what all civilized nations have decided is immoral and inhuman. I don't consider myself "enlightened" but I'm not "sheltered", I just know what is the limit of humane behaviour before the good guys devolve into the bad guys without even knowing it. Edited by whitestar, Dec 16 2008, 10:55 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 16 2008, 11:57 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Really? Source? I envy you your sheltered corner of the world. I really do. Edited by Admiralbill_gomec, Dec 16 2008, 11:57 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Dec 16 2008, 11:16 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Is it really as simple as ... people on the left want police soft on crime because they might have an innocent man, while... people on the right want police tough on crime because they might have the right man. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Dec 16 2008, 11:46 PM Post #8 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
The trouble is with part of all this, is that if you deny the use of any "coercive" methods upon terrorist suspects, and these days that would include any form of "physical, psychological, or emotional discomfort", (in other words that could mean any matter of trivial trauma) then we just have to go to plan B. That is, taking the suspects back to their country of origin, that being usually Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and even Libya, where, we "let" their jailers do the "interrogating" using the good ol' fashioned techniques (hint: there's a lot of screaming) while US military intel "guests" stand in the background and take notes about any "information" that the prisoner may want to "discuss" either during or after said "applications". (That's if he survives) All legal, by the way, since we're just "returning" suspects back to their own country; letting our allies in the war on terror who aren't as "squeamish" about "method" take over. Too bad that Habib the cab driver was innocent. Even though he didn't survive his "interrogation". This could have been established easily at Gitmo without even a waterboarding. But since we've closed it down and all, and no longer raise our voices when interviewing mass killers, it does feel good to be so "civilized". We're just going to use Plan B again, anyway, since Gitmo has become a politicized point of condemnation. And who wants to try a whole plethora of terror suspects in US courts ? Better this way, anyhow. As if any of this is really about the "human rights" of terror suspects in the first place. It isn't. Nobody cares about how these suspects will be treated "over there". Only "over here". I say let our "barbaric" allies do the "dirty work" from now on. We'll just "observe". Our hands will be clean. And that's all that matters. Edited by Franko, Dec 16 2008, 11:50 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 17 2008, 08:46 AM Post #9 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Your broad generalizations show gross ignorance of the real world. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 17 2008, 09:54 AM Post #10 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
The whiners call that rendition, and that is part of what America is doing that is supposedly torturous. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Dec 17 2008, 10:05 AM Post #11 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
Actually if you pay attention to people around here. people of the left and right hod the opinions RTW said. It's not a broad generalization but a pretty much correct when observing people's Politics they follow. I noticed myself from people around me and on here that his statement is true. I think you own a apology. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 17 2008, 01:18 PM Post #12 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Really? Honestly it is you who has not paid attention. I am what the Right wingers on this board would lable as leftist. But if people paid attention they would actually see that I take each issue on it's own merits and make an opinion based on those merits. I have NEVER expressed the opinion that we should be "soft on crime" NEVER. I am all for throwing away the key and letting someone rot if they deserve it. Being against the death penalty does not equal being "soft" And in actual fact there are rightwingers on this board who are against torture and the death penalty. Hoss would fit that bill. I am not sure about Franko. I am not sure if he is against torture completely or just the hypocrisy of allowing others to do our dirty work. He wasn't completely clear on that and I would love it if he would expand on his comments and let us know. I think it is those who stereotype and label others that should apologize. As far as I am concerned RTW owes me an apology assuming what I and others from the left side of the political spectrum believe instead of giving us the courtesy of asking. Edited by fireh8er, Dec 17 2008, 02:38 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Dec 17 2008, 09:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
First of all, my biggest problem is how exactly we are defining "torture". Apart from the fact that the word conjures up all sorts of imagery and horrifying connotations, it's a pretty broad concept. It's my belief that the term has aroused a more emotional response in western opinion rather than an objective analysis of the criteria employed, for instance at Gitmo. 1. What is the criteria used for establishing limits on interrogation that are legally sanctioned in this matter either from within US military law, or by executive order ? For instance, coercion that does no lasting damage and is medically supervised (like waterboarding) may be legally permissable, and if deemed effective, used occasionally to extract information. Do I like it? Not really. Will I permit it under professional and legally controlled circumstances? Yes. 2. Amazingly, nothing gets people's dander up more than when "we" , or more specifically, the US, employs measures that make us uncomfortable and prompt hasty moral judgements and condemnation. However, many of our "allies" and "trading partners" and wonderful nations such as "China" violate human rights and engage in torture on a daily basis; but yet there is no condemnation. In fact, it is even considered "improper" to condemn, protest, buttress, or create any "discomfort" at all to the governments of "those" nations that routinely torture people with far more severity and for far more frivolous reasons than we might be doing, and in their case it is usually against their own citizens, not, in our case against terror suspects who are engaged in a movement that places mass murder at it's core. Is this hypocrisy? At the moment I find it difficult to dig up any other term to describe it. But more than hypocrisy, it is a system of ethical, moral and philosophical reckoning than operates in isolation, a compartmentalized view that wishes to police our own conduct but on a greater scale does not want to "rock the boat", or criticize the conduct of "other" nations. 3. If coercive interrogation that is within acceptable limits is very effective, and leads to saving lives, and does no permanent damage to the individual, is still preferrable to deferring the detainee to a third party who will inflict coercive techniques that are life-threatening, leaving the individual maimed or dead in the end. In this case, where is the moral victory ? Again, Habib the innocent cab driver has a better chance of establishing his innocence within our custody that follows strict guidelines and rules, rather than in the custody of even his home nation, where in their dungeons, anything goes. Even if innocent, as we have seen, he may still be subjected to atrocity for a long time, or incarcerated indefinitely. If this means that I am deferring to the lesser of two evils, then so be it As for the death penalty, that is problematic. My opposition to the death penalty proceeds from reasons somewhat different than the reasoning of many others, a kind of "feel good" we no longer hang folks cuz we're just so "enlightened and civilized" mentality. (another subject and I believe unrelated to the "torture" issue.) Edited by Franko, Dec 17 2008, 09:30 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Dec 17 2008, 09:53 PM Post #14 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
I didn't say all, but for the most part it's true. Please re-read what I said. It's a general thing that the Left is more worried about accidently getting the wrong guy, where the right are more worried actually getting the bad guy. And please show me where in my post I mentioned anything about torture and the Death Penalty? From what I remember typing and looking over my post. it clearly does not saying anything about either of them. Edited by rowskid86, Dec 17 2008, 09:55 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 17 2008, 10:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Rowskid - torture is the topic of the thread, if you read the opening article. I made the "broad" assumption that RTW's remarks were somehow connected to the actual topic And as for "the left" being concerned about getting the wrong guy all I can say is that is a load of hooey. Everyone who upholds the law should be concerned with getting the right person. That is why one of the most important tenents of law is that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Your contention would seem to insinuate that those on the right don't give a damn about that. You owe your fellow right wingers an apology because I don't believe that they would throw that important principle out the window as you suggest. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




2:12 PM Jul 11